Sam Worthington to Play Dracula? [Updated]

Max Schreck, Béla Lugosi, Christopher Lee, Gary Oldman, Jack Palance and… Leslie Nielsen – those are just some of the actors who have all portrayed Dracula at some point throughout this last Century of movie making. And today we get word that leading-man-of-the-minute, Sam Worthington, is going to be joining that list.

Latino Review has the exclusive on the story that Sam Worthington is in line to play Dracula in Universal’s Dracula: Year Zero. There’s no official word on Worthington being in talks but Latino Review‘s trusted source “Pinche Taco” says the Aussie actor is supposed to be playing him.

I guess it’s no surprise that Worthington is in the running, as much like Ryan Reynolds or Robert Pattinson, you should pretty much expect that their names are going to be attached to any big role that comes along. I’m sure this story of Worthington’s attachment will be proven true or false soon enough. Watch this space.

Dracula: Year Zero is set to be directed by Alex Proyas (Dark City, I, Robot, Knowing) and the script has been written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless (who are both writing the Flash Gordon movie). The film is an original take on Dracula, telling the story of, “Vlad the Impaler, the Romanian royal who inspired Bram Stroker’s vampire tale. It centers on how Vlad became the creature; the choices that he made to make him into the tragic character.” From Bloody-Disgusting – “It depicts Dracula as a flawed hero in a tragic love story set in a dark age of magic and war, repositioning him more as a vengeful hero than the monster seen in Bram Stoker’s classic novel.”

For what producer Michael De Luca had to say about the project – including what the story is and how big the scale is – you can head HERE to read what we reported on.

What would a new take on Dracula be like?

The project reportedly has a budget of over $100 million, which does seem like quite a lot for the type of film that it looks to be. Universal spent over $150 million on its new Wolfman movie (yowza!), but I imagine the special effects needed to create the actual Wolfman were much more costly than what you would need to put Dracula on-screen. Not unless they’re going for some CGI version of the bloodsucker…

Dracula: Year Zero is said to be one of eight films that Universal needs for 2011 and they currently have fourteen to choose from. With the success of the Twilight franchise, as well as vampires being popular on TV with True Blood and The Vampire Diaries, it’s no surprise Universal would want to choose the movie they already have a script and director for, which is about vampires. Recent attempts to bring Dracula to life have been unsuccessful with examples being Blade: Trinity (one of THE worst excuses for a vampire flick, never mind Dracula, I’ve ever seen) and Dracula: 2000 where Gerard Butler portrayed the character. Can Universal revive arguably the most famous horror character of all time and draw in audiences? We’ll have to wait and see.

Would you like to see Sam Worthington play Dracula? Are you looking forward to a new take on the character? And can the project play off of Twilight and become a success?

There’s no official release date set for Dracula: Year Zero but it looks to be slated for a release sometime in 2011.

I like Sam Worthington, but…. Dracula?? I don't know about that. Maybe he could surprise us? I don't like the idea of portraying Dracula as a “tragic hero” though. Vampires need to be taken serious again. I want Dracula onscreen with a big cape and saying “children of the night… etc.”, and biting necks! Vampires are so fruity lately, but… This is a smart idea because of all the Twilight-mania and other vampire-related shows and movies. Take the most popular thing right now (vampires) and mix it with the most popular actor right now (Worthington) and Universal has some serious box office poison.

I hope this movie will be as great as it seems now…I am a member of an Italian Association that studies his history, so I'm happy to read this news!The true historical Prince Vlad III Dracula was a Knight of the Order of the Dragon and not a vampire, so it is great that finally someone is doing something to show at least a part of his true history that is full of action, battles and sad events more than a vampire movie!!! He wasn't as much cruel as some false books (created by his enemies to slander him) said: he impaled exclusively the criminals, traitors and enemies and did many good things to help his people and the Church, he was generous and suffered for what he had to do because of his cruel enemies that destroyed his Country, his family and wife and his life… So yes he was a “tragic hero”…

Dracula is one of those characters that just gets butchered every time they try to put him in a film. For some reason people have this problem with a truly evil character. No, no… he must sympathetic, misunderstood, blah blah blah. Folks, he's EVIL! It's not that complicated.

I get this mental image of some Hollywood movie focus group sitting around this snarling guy with fangs. The conversation would be something along these lines:

Bram Stoker's Dracula (Gary Oldman) did focus on the tragic hero theme. It showed him as a hero during those times and a member of the Catholic Church. After his wife was killed, that's when he cursed God and became the demon we all know today. It seems like this movie will just focus more on how he was before his condemnation.

Great! Another vampire movie, I am sick and tired of vampire and zombie movies, how about something else, like maybe the Creature from the Black Lagoon ir something. The Wolfman looks interesting so I might go see it. Vampires have been played to death lately, time to give it a rest.

Personally, I am excited for this project. This is a medieval supernatural film with Vlad and, come on guys, Alex Proyas directing? This is the guy who has made THE two films which have attributed to comic book movies to be “dark” and “gritty”. The Crow and Dark City. Sam Worthington, heh, I really do not mind the guy. Better him than say, Michael Cera as Vlad.

I really like the sound of the concept, and Alex Proyas has made some pretty awesome movies (except for Knowing) so thats sounds good. But Worthington doesn't strike me as a good Dracula. We have had some great dracula actors, but Worthington does not strike me as a noble yet sinister Romanian vampire

Agreed, I want a more traditional Bela Lugozi or Christopher Lee dracula and vampire movie. Combine that with good direction, great gothic scenery, and some good violence that fits the movie, that would be awesome and would definitely give a good kick in the pants to the whole annoying Twilight vampire fad.

Playing any character as purely evil (or good) is so one-dimensional and empty. There's got to be a reason for everything, so as much as some cynics like to mock vamp movies in which the creature's background is explored and he actually has a bit of a conscience or emotions, it's what makes sense (after all, most vamps start off as human, so why wouldn't they retain some of those human qualities?). I mean, maybe if you're a 13 yr old boy you'd rather see a 100% evil bloodsucker with no rhyme or reason, and maybe add some monster trucks, bikini girls and exploding cool stuff too, huh? Right. While I can't stomach the Twilight movies (it's for teenage girls, people, so why would you expect anything evil or grotesque out of it?!) and do agree that the vampire theme is being done to death now, actors like Gary Oldman have done an amazing job of portraying Dracula as both a monster and someone you almost want to root for. If you want to see only blood and gore with no sentimental stuff, go see a zombie movie or something.

I like yours and Donatella's viewpoints. I don't think they should have to turn every damn vampire movie into a tragic love story, but it does make sense to give the monster/hero (however you prefer to view vampires) some back story that explains the reason for the transformation. And yes, Vlad the Impaler has always been viewed as a total monster when in truth there was more to him than that, I believe. Was he not raped as a kid or youth? Did he himself not endure horrible torture? Would that not account for his later actions (besides, those were brutal times and punishments on your enemies were savage anyway)? See, everyone comes with a story and a reason. It makes sense to cover it.

Christy, allow me to clarify my point about Hollywood shying away from a purely evil Dracula, because I get the feeling my point was lost in my attempt at humor. I didn't suggest in my post (tongue-in-cheek as it was) that I would want him to act without rhyme or reason. One-dimensional? Not at all. To suggest a purely evil vampire is unrealistic (well, beyond the vampire part), strikes me as rather flawed thinking. We have plenty of unfortunate examples in history and modern day society that demonstrate people are quite capable of being just plain evil (I fall into the camp that believes some people are born bad). Three-dimensional characters do not require the character be capable of good and bad. They merely require consistent motives, a detail you do touch on.

As for monster trucks… no interest in them. Bikini girls… I wouldn't say “no interest” but I certainly doubt they could contribute to the story beyond being rescue bait, even if the actresses can at least act like they have a brain. Exploding stuff… doesn't exactly fit in a vampire film, but stranger things have happened.

I'd also point out that I'm not crazy about gore in films for the sake of gratuitous blood splatter. Even as one who likes vampire films, I don't think the genre requires gore.

On the point of Gary Oldman's take on Dracula. He's a fantastic actor, and I love a lot of his work, but “Bram Stoker's Dracula” was a dreadful film. I would argue that the Dracula in that film was not three-dimensional but rather Hollywood refusing to let the character be the character. That Dracula only did whatever the plot demanded in order to get to the next scene, and that's poor writing. Oldman did the best he could with what he was handed. The “evil” Dracula that seduces and turns Lucy into a child-killing monster doesn't marry with the “misunderstood” Dracula who just wants to be with the woman he loves. The only reason to pull for Dracula in that film was because the good-guys were just boring and poorly acted.

I think one of the most well-written vampire movies was “Interview with the Vampire,” so I'm not opposed to a vampire film that offers a vampire with a conscience. The character development of Louis, Lestat and Claudia in that film is fantastic. The film offered something different and honored the source material. My desire for a purely-evil Dracula has more to do with it offering something different from the norm in today's vampire films while being true to the source material. Speaking as a person who has read DRACULA and enjoyed the book, “Bram Stoker's Dracula” was a complete misnomer.

Well, I will obviously have to disagree with you. “Bram Stoker's Dracula” was not perfect (I myself would like to magically tweak a few things and recreate it), but still my favorite vampire film. “Interview with the Vampire”? Not horrible, but it tends to put me to sleep. The same goes for the original Stoker novel, which lacks human emotion from all the characters. I actually love horror novels, but Stoker's classic didn't do it for me.

While the combination of the evil Dracula that corrupts poor Lucy and loves Elisabeta/Mina for centuries may not work for you, it's what made it appealing to others. A perfect copy of the Dracula in the Stoker novel, or a completely remorseful, whiney vamp (such as Brad Pitt's in “Interview…”) would not have held the same appeal for me. It's all a matter of tastes.

As for attempt at humor, that's exactly what my comment about bikini girls and explosions was.

Well, I will obviously have to disagree with you. “Bram Stoker's Dracula” was not perfect (I myself would like to magically tweak a few things and recreate it), but still my favorite vampire film. “Interview with the Vampire”? Not horrible, but it tends to put me to sleep. The same goes for the original Stoker novel, which lacks human emotion from all the characters. I actually love horror novels, but Stoker's classic didn't do it for me.

While the combination of the evil Dracula that corrupts poor Lucy and loves Elisabeta/Mina for centuries may not work for you, it's what made it appealing to others. A perfect copy of the Dracula in the Stoker novel, or a completely remorseful, whiney vamp (such as Brad Pitt's in “Interview…”) would not have held the same appeal for me. It's all a matter of tastes.

As for attempt at humor, that's exactly what my comment about bikini girls and explosions was.

Eh. For me, Gary Oldman is the man. His portrayal of Vlad at the beginning of Bram Stoker’s Dracula is the pinnacle. Maybe Sam can pull it off, but if he’s playing a Romanian, he’ll have to not only drop the Aussie accent, but also adopt a dialect more Eastern European.